Back
High Court Of Orissa
H. L. AGRAWAL, A. K. PADHI
STATE OF ORISSA - Appellant
Versus
M.S.JAGGI - Respondent
ORIGINAL CRI. MISC. CASE 27 Of 1980
Decided On : 08/25/1988
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ALLEGATIONS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUDGE AND ADVERSARY - WHETHER CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT - INTERPRETATION OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - DISTINCTION BETWEEN MERE LIBEL AND CONTEMPT - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Allegations of relationship between a judge and a party in a case may not amount to contempt of court unless they impute improper motives or tend to create distrust in the public mind and impair confidence in the courts.
Fact of the Case:
The contemner, involved in several litigations, made allegations in an affidavit and a petition that the Hon'ble Judge hearing his case was related to his adversary. The contemner claimed to have derived the information from reliable sources and asserted his belief in its correctness. The Court initiated contempt proceedings against the contemner based on these allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the contemner's allegations did not amount to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court distinguished between mere libel or defamation of a judge and what amounts to contempt of the court. It opined that the allegations, though amounting to loss of confidence in the judicial integrity of the Hon'ble Judge, did not contain any aspersion or contumacy.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations made by the contemner constitute contempt of court? 2. Whether the allegations tend to scandalize or lower the authority of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the definition of 'contempt' in Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which includes acts that scandalize or tend to scandalize or lower the authority of any court. 2. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that the test for contempt is whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by his court. 3. The Court also cited Gobind Ram v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that mere allegations of a relationship between a magistrate and a party, without imputing improper motives or creating distrust in the public mind, do not constitute contempt.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the rule of contempt issued against the contemner, holding that the allegations made by him did not amount to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
H. L. AGRAWAL, C. J.
( 1 ) WHETHER the allegations made by the opposite party M. S. Jaggi would constitute contempt of Court is the question which falls for our decision.
( 2 ) THE facts : the contemner was a party in two Criminal Revisions filed in this Court He was petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 558 of 1979 and opposite party in Criminal Revision No. 432 of 1979. In both the revisions, the contemner's adversary was Subash Chandra Mohapatra. On 29-4-1980 Criminal Revision No. 432 of 1979 (in which the contemner was opposite party) was taken up for hearing by J. K. , Mohanty, J. (as be then was) when the contemner had appeared in person to argue the case. Hearing was concluded and the case was reserved for judgement. Criminal Revision No. 558 of 1979 in which the contemner was the petitioner was taken up for admission by Justice Mohanty on 14-5-1980. On that day the contemner orally told the Judge not to take up the revision as his adversary Subash Chandra Mohapatra happened to be related to the Hon'ble Judge inasmuch as the mother-in-law of the Judge and the wife of the elder brother of Subash Chandra Mohapatra were sisters and particulary when the Hon'ble Judge was residing in the house of his father-in-law right from the time of his marriage. Notwithstanding the above conduct of the contemner, the learned Judge took up the case for admission which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move again after disposal of the criminal case and the contemner was asked to file an affidavit supporting his above allegations.
( 3 ) ON 15-5-1980, when Criminal Revision No. 432 of 1979 was still pending for delivery of the judgement, the contemner filed an affidavit praying for transfer of the case to the Court of some other Hon'ble Judge. The affidavit read as follows :-"1. That the opposite party yesterday came to know the relationship of your Lordship with the petitioner and accordingly he mentioned before your Lordship when his Criminal Revision No. 558 of 1979 came up for admission yesterday. 2. That it would be proper in the interest of justice that your Lordship may be graciously pleased to transfer the file of the Criminal Revision No. 432 of 1979 to any other Hon'ble Judge of this Hon'ble Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . apprehends that some injustice may be done to him. . . . . . . . . . . "the learned Judge on 16-5-1980 passed an order to the following effect :-"after the matter was finally heard an affidavit has been filed now that the petitioner is a relation of the Court. This objection was never raised at any time. The statement in the affidavit is not correct. Place before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action. "
( 4 ) ON the basis of the above order and in accordance with the Orissa High Court Rules, the matter was placed before the Court on the administrative side and it was decided to draw up a proceeding for contempt against the contemner. In view of the denial made by Justice Mohanty of the alleged relationship in his order dated 16-5-1980, the contemner filed another petition on 21-5-1980 in Criminal Revision No. 558 of 1979 labelling it under S. 482, Cr. P. C. purporting to clarify the relationship between the Judge and Subash Chandra Mohapalra. The portion of that petition reads as follows :-"2. That on 16-5-80 your Lordship in the Criminal Revision No. 558 of 1979 which came up for orders directed with the observation on the affidavit of the petitioner and also your Lordship denied the relationship of the opposite party to which the petitioner is clarifying your Lordship's relationship with the opposite party :-'subash Chandra Mohapatra is the younger brother of Sarat Chandra Mohapatra whose wife and the mother-in-law of your Lordship are sisters and they are on very good terms with each other and since your Lordship has been staying in the house of your Lordship's mother-in-law almost from the date of marriage, the petitioner as opposite party in the Criminal Revision No
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
